Here we go again. Violence and destruction of property over a white police officer acquitted of killing a black man. There are certainly those cases where a white officer murdered a black man, such as with Philando Castile, where the murdering officer was acquitted but was fired by the police force as he should have been, and the senseless shooting of Walter Scott, where the officer pleaded guilty in a plea deal and will serve time as he should.

In this case, as in virtually all cases where black men are shot and killed, a crime had been committed or was in the process of being committed. Anthony Lamar Smith was dealing drugs, and when caught, used his car as a weapon against the police. When he was cornered and refused to get out of the car, he was shot and killed. I’m not saying this was the right thing for the police officer to do, but as with the Michael Brown case, it’s never a good idea to make a threatening move against a cop. You will most likely get shot and killed. It’s kind of common sense.

Consider the fact that blacks are 13% of the population. Blacks account for almost 48% of all murders, 55% of all robberies, 34% of all aggravated assault, and 31% of all burglaries, according to 2012 FBI statistics. The fact is that blacks simply commit considerably more crimes than other race groups as a percentage of the population. That cannot be disputed. And thus, since blacks commit more crimes, they will come into contact with law enforcement more often and there will be more opportunities for blacks to be shot by police officers. Still, blacks are killed at one-half the rate by police officers compared to whites even though we commit an inordinate number of crimes as a percentage of the population.

These people in St. Louis are violently protesting the rare case where a black man is shot by a police officer, and completely ignore the high crime perpetrated by blacks in these urban communities, which is the problem (as in the 800-pound gorilla, the elephant in the room, you get it). But they don’t want to face that simple fact. Instead of protesting, they should be looking within and they will find that the fault is almost entirely their own.

To get down to it, the problem in urban black communities is the lack of quality education and poverty due to lack of economic opportunity. These are the key drivers of crime. And in virtually all cases, these urban areas are run by Democrat politicians who have promised the moon over the past five decades and delivered nothing but misery. Yet their policies that make blacks ever more dependent on government are never challenged and even heralded.

Now, this is not an endorsement of Republicans. Republicans, in the rare cases where they bother to speak to urban black communities, don’t promise more checks from the government, but to bring school choice and economic opportunity to the poor in these communities so they can begin to rise up the economic ladder for themselves. But these messages have always been rejected because Democrats, who want to protect their votes and stay in office, will say Republicans are racists because they don’t have anything tangible to argue otherwise. This is an intellectually lazy and cowardly way to stay in office, and clearly, it has worked quite effectively. They care more about staying in office than actually finding a way to end the cycle of poor education and poverty in their urban districts. But then again, black communities keep voting for these people without demanding more. And that is why they keep getting the same result. The very definition of insanity.

From Calvin Coolidge, an answer to everyone who wants a different nation than what we have. The liberal progressives of today simply do not understand that the America they wish for is regressive, not progressive. Their views will not usher in progress, but destruction. As the Bible says, there is nothing new under the sun. There are simply things that cannot and need not be improved upon, such as freedom and liberty. Many a civilization in the past never knew such things. Liberal progressives would be wise to heed Coolidge’s words. If they don’t, it is ultimately to the peril of themselves and the rest of us as well. The people of Venezuela now know this intimately.

“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”

The other day I was on Facebook discussing a recent poll showing Republicans becoming more approving of same-sex marriage, and how this related to religious liberty. I was in general agreement with the author, who is a stalwart conservative representing the LGBT community, that there is a balance to be had where homosexuals can live out their lives in peace and harmony without systematic discrimination, while accepting there will be those who, while serve anyone generally as a photographer or cake baker, may draw a line at intimately participating in a same-sex marriage based on their religious faith. Those people have legitimate reasons for their views and they should not be disparaged in any way. One friend suggested that I change my view on same-sex marriage, basically because everyone else is doing it, and a second tried to argue that the Bible actually has no issues whatsoever with homosexuality, and by extension, same-sex marriage.

To the first friend, I don’t change my views because of what most other people feel. Most Republicans do not have formal biblical or philosophical training as I do, and so they don’t drink deeply from those wells, thus having little to no scholarship on the natural law. When you truly understand what marriage is about, which is having a mother and a father committed to the growth and maturity of their children, you see that experimenting with children and treating them like property where you can foist any situation on them and think they just need to live with it is not going to produce a good result. In a same-sex marriage where children are involved, there will always be a third party, more than likely somewhere obscured in the distance. What this same-sex couple has done is deprived a child of the ability to have a mother and father to raise it, demonstrating the natural, complementary bonds of love between a man and a woman that cannot be replicated otherwise. I can’t think of anything more selfish and self-centered than to intentionally deprive a child of the best environment for that child to grow in. It is one thing to lose a spouse through death or divorce. It is an entirely different matter to willfully deny a child the mother and father it deserves. As Dr. Jennifer Roback-Morse stated so beautifully on a recent Issues, Etc. episode, “Children are entitled to a relationship with both of their parents, and they are entitled to know who they are.”

As to my friend who argues that the Bible has no problem with homosexuality because of their ignorance back then, I say to her that while she may be ashamed of the gospel, I am not ashamed of the gospel. The Apostle Paul, in Romans 1:16 (ESV), writes,

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”

So clearly, there were people who believed but were ashamed to be believers, and when push came to shove they were not going to support it or fall away from the faith entirely. I believe that is my friend who is ashamed to support the clear teaching of the Bible, because she values what culture has to say over the actual text of the Bitle. She doesn’t like what the Bible has to say on the matter of homosexuality, so she has graciously accepted unscriptural interpretations of the Bible that others have proposed to make herself feel good about her personal position. Here are some verses that I think apply:

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4, ESV)

“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.” (Acts 20:28-30, ESV)

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-20, ESV)

Now I don’t think my friend is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but I think she has aligned herself with people who are, and she has accepted a reading of the Bible that violates basic exegetical and hermeneutical principles. My admonition to her was to, instead of intentionally misrepresenting the clear communication of the Bible, that she just reject the Bible entirely. It would be far more honest, and she could relieve herself and anyone else she knows that disagrees with the Bible of any moral instruction the Bible provides. If God can’t accurately transmit his wishes, and if the Bible truly came from God, it wouldn’t matter how ignorant or uninformed people were 2000 years ago because God would have given them information that transcended space and time, which would apply the same today as yesterday. So clearly, my friend thinks the Bible is a man-made construction because it is only logical that if this were truly God speaking then it didn’t matter when the message was transmitted. It would always be true regardless unless God changed it in the future. And last I checked, God has not come back to change the Bible.

In closing, let me be clear what I am not saying. I am not saying God doesn’t love homosexuals because of course he does. God loves homosexuals in the same manner he loves every other human being and calls them to repentance through faith in Christ. I love homosexuals. And I shouldn’t even have to make such a distinction because they’re just human beings, and unfortunately our culture has become accustomed to talk about homosexuality as if it is some way to identify a person when no one should be identified based on their sexuality. In the context of this writing, however, as I am called to turn away from my sins, a homosexual is called to the same thing. There is no special dispensation given to any human being making that human being able to say they don’t have to deal with their sin while everyone else has to deal with theirs. That applies to me and applies to homosexuals equally.

Crystal Griner, described unfortunately as a black, lesbian law enforcement officer in a same-sex marriage, was one of two Capitol Police officers last week that bravely saved the lives of Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise and a number of other Republican lawmakers practicing for a charity baseball game against congressional Democrats. And now liberal progressives are making hay because the officer saved someone that doesn’t share her political views. She was doing her job, as she should, where it should never be a consideration that law enforcement consider the political or moral views of the person(s) they are protecting. If this were in reverse, where a conservative law enforcement officer was protecting a lesbian congresswoman, would conservatives criticize that law enforcement officer for protecting someone with political or moral views that didn’t align with theirs? Hardly. In fact, this is the case the majority of the time, since law enforcement officers overwhelmingly tend to be conservative leaning. To expect the moral or political views of a law enforcement officer to be the same as the people they are protecting is as idiotic as it is disingenuous, but that obviously doesn’t deter some. There would be many people who would go unprotected as such an ethic would destroy all trust in law enforcement.

What is most interesting to me is how illogical otherwise intelligent liberal progressives are on this issue. Liberal progressives make the moral claim that Scalise is “bigoted” and “homophobic.” But why do they make moral claims when they believe morality is relative? Somehow they believe they have a right to make moral claims which are superior to those of Scalise. But how can their claims be superior if morality is relative? At the same time they believe Scalise himself does not have or deserve the right to make a moral claim that is different from theirs based on his Christian faith, knowing that Scalise’s moral claim about same-sex marriage comes from his Christian faith. The story of the Jews and Christianity is well-documented historical fact. Jesus Christ was a historical figure that actually walked this earth. The only dispute is if Christ raised from the dead. If he raised from the dead, then that authenticates his claim to be the son of God, and thus this makes Scalise’s morality objectively grounded. If Christ didn’t raise from the dead, then even the Bible itself notes that Scalise’s faith is misplaced. But for all we know his faith is perfectly reasonable even though it is possible he is wrong.

Now the moral claims liberal progressives make, they say, are something that have evolved over time and are grounded in society. Well, in a recent Barna survey, which does note how younger people are becoming more and more relativist in their moral leanings, 44% believe morality is relative, 35% believe morality is absolute, and 21% haven’t thought much about it. So it is not pervasive in society that morality is relative, though it certainly appears we are headed in that direction. Thus, liberal progressives truly have no basis on which to call Scalise bigoted or homophobic from a societal standard and they certainly have no grounding that objectifies their stance. They are really no more than intolerant, bigoted, people themselves who can’t accept that other people can have legitimate views that differ from theirs. And to me, these people are not adults. They are children in adult bodies that have not grown up but have learned to manipulate language and hurl unseemly, immature, and infantile epithets at others when they don’t get their way. Moreover, they feel they must demonize and dehumanize those who disagree with them, instead of simply attacking the ideas of others and engaging in debate. The way of the conservative is to attack ideas, not the person, and to foster open dialogue without attempting to suppress the views of others as liberal progressives do. If liberal progressives would grow up and behave as adults, we could have the profitable and productive political discourse we need.

In closing, I think it’s important to point out, based on comments from friends on Facebook, is the fact that Scalise had to have placed his full trust in this officer, since she was guarding his life. Certainly, he knew her family situation and probably her political leanings, but he allowed her to protect him anyway. If he were a “homophobe,” he would hardly place his life in the hands of, or spend time continually around, someone who caused “a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object… that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.” That is the definition of a phobia, according to Dictionary.com. So perhaps liberal progressives need to also learn the meanings of the pejoratives they use so capriciously.

Moral relativism, I think, is one of the most illogical and dishonest positions a person could have. Indeed, moral relativists do moralize, but the question is why do they? If morality is relative, there isn’t much of a basis for moralizing at all. What any given moral relativist may have is a particular opinion on a subject, but that cannot place any moral force or imperative on anyone else. Now the moral relativist would argue that “morality” is culturally bound, and thus this drives the impetus for people to fit within a particular moral structure, but we all know culture is continually changing. So if culture is continually changing, and morality is continually changing, how can the moral relativist pinpoint the current state of affairs better than the person they are trying to persuade to their view? And trust me, the moral relativist is just as adamant about advancing their view as the moral objectivist that they criticize for advancing an alternative view.

I think a better grounding for the moral relativist, in order to be logically consistent, is to simply take the position of being amoral, and to not take any moral positions, honestly denying there is such thing as morality, but there are opinions about morality nonetheless, since in essence they are denying objective morality that is advanced by moral objectivists. And since there is nothing objective to ground these “moral” opinions, then people should just be able to do whatever they are able to get away with. For if a person who calls themselves a moral relativist actually advances moral claims, they are implicitly objectifying morality because they are asserting moral force and an imperative whereby someone should follow.

Let’s take a concrete example. Since I’m always one to not back down from controversy, let’s examine same-sex marriage. Moral objectivists of the Christian persuasion believe homosexuality is immoral, based on biblical teachings. Moral relativists who support same-sex marriage claim it is a “right.” Well if morality is relative, there is no objective basis on which to make the claim that anything is a “right.” There are no “rights” if morality is relative, and thus moral relativists, if they are honest, should never, ever, use the phrase that something in particular is a “right,” since that is a necessarily objective claim. The moral relativist can say they support same-sex marriage, but they cannot logically say it is a right.

Not only do moral relativists say same-sex marriage is a right, but they go further and say those who don’t agree are wrong, bigoted, and are homophobes. That is surprisingly strong language by those who claim morality is relative. First, they are asserting that those who disagree are wrong, which is nothing more than stealing a concept from the moral objectivist. Second, they call the moral objectivist bigoted, which is making an objective value judgment. And third, they advance an ad hominem attack by impugning the very motives of the moral objectivist. And let’s not forget that the moral relativist at the same time argues that the moral objectivist is “imposing” their views on others. Well is the moral relativist not “imposing” their views on others and a whole lot more?

Thus, as I stated in the beginning, the position of moral relativists is not only illogical but dishonest. The persons who call themselves moral relativists would be logical and honest if they simply say they support this position or that, make no moral claims, and make absolutely no arguments or charges against others that don’t agree with them. The moral relativist should simply say they have an opinion on a particular matter and what they support. Anything else beyond that is being a moral objectivist while pretending not to be, which they say they are decidedly not.

I was listening to Senator Mike Lee on the Andrew Wilkow show this morning (SiriusXM), which prompted me to write a little note to my liberal friends about the simplicity of federalism. Note that suddenly, since Donald Trump has come into power as president of the United States, you have now become fans of federalism, which is the division of powers between the federal and state government. You want more matters decided at the state level because you don’t like or want what Trump may do at the federal level. Well this is what I have been telling you all along when Obama was pushing down his agenda from on high. You liked what Obama was doing, and didn’t expect Trump to win, so you were happy. Well things didn’t work out as you planned. And that’s why you should have listened to me all along that federalism is the best thing no matter who is in office. You’re simply not going to get things your way all the time. Life doesn’t work like that.

With federalism, you control much of your destiny at the state and local levels, and simply allow the federal government to do the few things it is designed to do and can do reasonably well. I know many of you are upset about Trump’s budget, but you shouldn’t be. He is not really “cutting” anything, but slowing the growth of the federal government. Raising spending on something less than you would have otherwise is not “cutting.” It’s still an increase. This means you will have more money in your pocket or in your state’s pocket where the money can be more efficiently and effectively allocated (presuming you don’t live in totally screwed up states such as California, New York, and Illinois). So now it becomes your responsibility to spend that money more wisely at the local and state levels.

Control your own destiny at a level where you can have more say and more impact. Think local. Think state. Get out of thoughts of a big federal government and getting everything you want shoved down the throats of all Americans. Think about what others want. Accept the fact that different people want different things and want to be able to move to a town or state where they can best realize the things that are important to them. If you truly believe in diversity, then this is the way to achieve it.

I have watched every season of Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, of which this is the last. As much as I admire Freeman, I sincerely disdain his politics and the manner in which he uses his celebrity to advocate for far left-wing causes under the guise of “science” to influence an unsuspecting public. In a recent episode, titled “Is Gun Crime a Virus?”, Freeman cites a gun research study in Philadelphia that correlated people who were shot with a similar person of the same age, race, and gender who was not shot to determine if carrying a gun causes a higher likelihood of being shot. As expected, a high correlation was found and victory declared. That may sound good to people who are unthinking and undiscerning, but what Freeman doesn’t do is to distinguish between legal gun owners and illegal gun owners, which makes a huge difference. A recent article in the Washington Post, no conservative bastion, cites a study done in partnership with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police which demonstrates that in 2009, 79% of gun crimes were committed with guns did not belong to the perpetrator. 18% were committed by the gun owner. So the vast majority of crimes are not committed by legal gun owners.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2009, 92% of all violent crimes in the U.S. don’t even involve firearms. Only 8% of all violent crimes were committed by offenders with a firearm. Morgan concludes that gun deaths in the U.S., which actually amounted to 33,599 in 2014, according to the Centers for Disease Control, are at pandemic levels yet don’t receive the attention and research they deserve. He compares this to only two deaths by the Ebola virus which received the full attention of the public health community. I think that’s a bit hyperbolic, because if you look at the statistics in 2014, a total of 2,626,418 resident deaths were registered in the U.S. and firearm deaths didn’t even crack the top 15 causes, according to the National Vital Statistics Reports, as follows:

Diseases of heart (heart disease)

Malignant neoplasms (cancer)

Chronic lower respiratory diseases

Accidents (unintentional injuries)

Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)

Alzheimer’s disease

Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)

Influenza and pneumonia

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)

Intentional self-harm (suicide)

Septicemia

Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis

Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)

Parkinson’s disease

Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids

In fact, of the 33,599 firearm deaths, suicide represents 64%, with homicides representing 33% of those for a total of 11,008total homicides in 2014. So Freeman doesn’t even get the number right on the actual number of homicides which is 1/3 of the 30,000 he cites in the program. While any number of homicides is tragic, out of a country with an estimated 310 million guns, you can hardly declare gun homicides a pandemic. So Freeman’s assertion, in my view, is a crock and a shameless canard for gun control. He and the writers of the Wormhole program do a great disservice to the people when they needlessly spread fake news to make a clearly political point. Perhaps it is the appropriate time for this program to bid goodbye.

I have written quite a bit about how liberal progressives view the Constitution as a living, breathing document. Indeed, the Constitution is a living, breathing document, but not in the way liberals want it to live and breathe. To wit, recently U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (regrettably, my senator from California), criticized U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch as being an “originalist” who would interpret the Constitution as it was understood in 1789. This is a highly odd and false interpretation of how an originalist judge would rule. The Constitution lives and breathes through the amendment process, and it is not the same document as it was in its original form back in 1789. So Feinstein’s charge that Gorsuch, as a Supreme Court judge, would take us back to the days of segregation, bans on interracial marriage, and discrimination against LGBT Americans is just as laughable as it is moronic for a senior U.S. senator to make such a ridiculous statement. The only thing she demonstrated in making such hyperbolic comments was to pander to ethnic minorities and the LGBT lobby. I can think of no other useful purpose for her comments, and her opposition to Gorsuch exhibited no reasonable argument against his confirmation, particularly since she falsely characterized how he would rule as a Supreme Court judge.

The problem with senator Feinstein and those of her ilk are that they use the Constitution as a plaything to be used to their own bidding. They see it as living and breathing based on how they or a particular judge should interpret it, where the interpretation itself is evolving over time. So the Constitution should not be interpreted as originally intended, or as amended, but should be interpreted based on the current social milieu in which Democrats find themselves. Clearly, this would benefit Democrats as they see the world at any given point in time, and would disadvantage others since without a clear set of principles how could anyone know what is going on in the minds of Democrats? Republicans believe the Constitution should be interpreted based on the ideas as originally intended and amended, which provides a neutral standard by which people may be judged, regardless of the political leanings of the judge. The Constitution is not just for Democrats, but is for all Americans. So its interpretation should not evolve except through Constitutional amendments, as justice is supposed to be blind and irrespective of the ideology of a judge at any level.

We are also hearing more recently that liberals are suddenly in love with the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution regarding states’ rights, now that we have a Republican president, which reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

When Barack Obama was president, liberals had absolutely no issues with the President exercising authority over state matters. A prime example, among others, is the bathroom mandate by the Obama administration that directed public schools, colleges, and universities to make accommodations for transgender students to access facilities consistent with their chosen, and not biological, gender identity. Well this is a local and state matter, not a matter for the federal government. It has since been overturned by current president Donald Trump through executive order, who correctly noted that this is not a federal matter. Liberals, of course, are up in arms. Yet these same liberals at the state level are going to the mat to prevent Trump from exercising a power that is delegated to the federal government, which is immigration policy. Various states are moving forward with sanctuary city policies that seek to block any cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and have successfully sued to block Trump’s temporary travel ban from countries with a high propensity to export terrorists. These are two cases where there is clear federal constitutional authority. Thus, liberals are terribly confused.

My point here is that liberals don’t seem to care that the U.S. Constitution is quite perspicuous in terms of what are federal versus what are state matters. The federal government is now involved in so many things that it was not designed to do, and can’t do well with any degree of efficiency or effectiveness. The Constitution was meant to limit the federal government, but it also clearly delineates what are the legitimate functions of the federal government. As a conservative, I want a constitution that works for all of the people, not for some. Thus an originalist interpretation by any judge of any ideological stripe ensures us that all people are created equally, and not based on the ideology of the judge, whatever that ideology might be. The purpose of a judge is to interpret the law, and to, as much as human possible, dismiss any personal feelings or predispositions in doing so. Societies do change and evolve, but there are ideas that transcend the particular zeitgeist of any given time, subject to the whims of human existence. And if our society wishes to change how the Constitution is interpreted, we can deliberatively go through the process of amending it, instead of actively subverting it. Liberals should know that if they are successful in interpreting the Constitution any way they wish, then conservatives can do the same. It’s a lose-lose game that liberals should stop playing. The Constitution is not a toy to be played with.

One of the most interesting things to me about liberal progressives is that when they are making a moral argument, they will, with a straight face, intentionally lie about the actual position of those whom they oppose. For example, Gil Garcetti, mayor of Los Angeles, was speaking of being a sanctuary city today, and how morally wrong it is for the Trump administration to “separate children from their families because it is inhumane,” regarding the Trump administration pulling funds from sanctuary cities that won’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. He goes on to say, “we don’t demonize our hardworking neighbors just because they speak a different language or come from a different country.” Well the question is, who is doing that? The Trump administration is going after criminal illegal aliens. There is no intention to separate families, though that may happen incidentally if someone is here committing crimes and happens to have children.

What Garcetti is doing is dangerously telegraphing to illegal aliens is that if you have children here, then that’s your ticket to stay because he doesn’t believe in tearing apart a family even if a parent is a criminal illegal alien. I can hardly think of anything more irresponsible. Also, exactly who does he refer to that is demonizing people regarding their language or where they come from? I didn’t hear one word demonizing any particular person or group of people. We’re talking about people who are here illegally participating in criminal activity, and that is the only criteria. So please, liberal progressives, if you’re going to take a moral position, then be moral. To openly and intentionally lie about the position of those you oppose makes your moral point moot. You look disingenuous, which is exactly what you are if you must misrepresent the positions of others in order to appeal to the emotions of the people to whom you are speaking.

I wanted to provide a little commentary about how Democrats are handling the Neil Gorsuch confirmation for U.S. Supreme Court justice, and ask my fair-minded liberal friends to consider just how bad this is and why they should not support this type of behavior from elected leaders when it comes to Supreme Court justice confirmations. The job of a judge is not to be a legislator or an executive. The job of a judge is not to follow their personal feelings or political persuasions. If a judge wants to rule based on their feelings or ideology, or wishes to be a legislator or executive, then that judge needs to find another profession or seek public office. This is something both the liberal and the conservative should want equally.

California Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein was wary of Gorsuch because based on her belief that the Constitution is a “living document,” she also believes that Gorsuch, as an “originalist” judge, will interpret the Constitution as it was written originally, when women didn’t have the right to vote and America had slaves. But there is a serious problem with her logic. It’s no news that the Constitution is a living document. It lives through the amendment process, and thus an originalist judge of today would interpret the Constitution as it exists today, not as it existed in its original form in 1789. How a woman who is a United States senator doesn’t know something so basic to her job would be astounding, so its clear to me the issue is she simply doesn’t like the Constitution, and wants Supreme Court judges on the bench to rule based on their political ideology and not based on the law.

Personally, I want a judge to follow the law, and not their political ideology, since political ideology can cut both ways. If the judge is a conservative, I want that judge to follow the law. If that judge is a liberal, I want that judge to follow the law. That is only fair to both the conservative and the liberal. Equal treatment. Matters such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and Obamacare should never have come before the Supreme Court and should never have been decided by the Supreme Court because none of these matters are federal matters. Liberals clearly like the judgment of the Supreme Court on all three of these issues, but they shouldn’t, because these decisions are clear violations of the Constitution since they are, again, not federal matters. Liberals did well at the Supreme Court under Obama, but do they think they will do so well under Trump? That’s to be determined.

My hope is once Gorsuch is confirmed that the court, moving forward, will rule based on the law, and not political ideology or feelings of social justice. Both liberals and conservatives should want the same. I’m certain there is going to come a case decided that liberals are going to intensely dislike. But I believe it will be because they want an ideological ruling instead of a constitutional ruling. And thus I ask my liberal friends to stop wanting ideological rulings by any judge because ideological rulings are bad rulings no matter who produces them. Soon enough there will be an ideological ruling that upsets liberals as well, and they shouldn’t complain because all along they will have advocated for judges that would make ideological rulings favorable to them. Well what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander, so they should be careful of what they wish for because the shoe will be on the other foot soon enough. My admonition is to just be fair and wish for justices that will simply follow the law and the Constitution they are sworn to protect.